Sometimes, you just have to laugh. Earth is a complex system, and forecasting weather events in such a complex system is no easy task due to the built in entropy aka “chaos” of dynamic weather systems. The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days. 30 years ago, the best was 5 days. We often criticize climate models for their attempts to forecast 10, 50, 100 years into the future, so it is instructive to look at what happens just a month ahead, as so brilliantly illustrated by these tweets from the Weather Channel.
The source of that Tweet is this article: February Temperature Outlook: Mild in Central, Eastern U.S.; Colder in Northwest
They say this: “February could be warmer than average in the Southern Plains and parts of the East” and supply this labeled graphic seen below.
But then, nature and chaos step in, they Tweet 20 days later:
And then…just three days later…..
So much for model forecasting skill less than a month ahead. To be fair, the forecast came from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center and the Weather Channel simply graphically stylized the forecast for TV and web use.
But we are expected to believe unverified climate models have useful forecast skill years, decades, or even a century in advance.
On this day in 2100 there will be a blizzard in Ft Lauderdale. You better believe me, I am a Scientist and I have a model that says that.
Can I quote you?
Please, use personal communication
And it’ll only take two weeks to flatten the curve for COVID-99.
We had snow in 1974 or 75. I might bring it down a little. Plantation Middle school.
Not sure why, but 1974 seems to ring a bell. Got a school snow day in central FL. (maybe 2). Best day ever. MacDonald’s was on the way home and I had 3 dollars in my pocket. Then we found out the school year extended to cover the snow days. (disappoint)
1977
I showed up for Navy Basic Training in Orlando in the middle of January, 1977. Lows were in the 20s. Day 3 was the swim test. The pool was heated, but the gym was not and we had to wait our turn outside. In our govt issued swim trunks. The water felt really good once I got in, and I sure wanted to show them I could tread water for another 10 minutes.
But if you send me all your money now, I guarantee it will not happen. I accept all forms of real currency, Bitcoin and Ethereum, or gold and silver.
Do you accept cats?
Especially kittens from the hippies down the road who do not believe in spaying.
Models are only as good as the knowledge of the programmers. That’s why climate models are so bad. They are missing a big part of the greenhouse. Here’s the part that’s missing.
Earth’s greenhouse has windows that open.
A greenhouse prevents solar energy, entering through its glass windows, from escaping. This keeps the interior of the greenhouse warm. While not exactly like a greenhouse, certain gases in our atmosphere do absorb energy (IR radiation) from the planet’s surface and redirect it back towards the surface. This has led to a description of our atmosphere acting like a greenhouse. It has been assumed that this redirected radiation will warm the Earth. CO2 emitted from human activities is one of those gases.
What if the greenhouse has windows? What if the windows get opened? Will the redirected energy find a way out of the greenhouse??
The answer to all 3 questions is YES. Just like we often open our windows in the evening on a warm day to cool our homes, the Earth’s climate system has the equivalent of windows. These windows open at night and almost all of the energy that has been trapped by greenhouse gases is dissipated through these windows every night.
This feature of the climate system is due to the interaction of two seemingly unrelated items.
1) The large difference in heat capacity between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere.
2) The way moisture controls Earth’s surface cooling.
The high heat capacity of the surface prevents redirected energy from significantly increasing its temperature. The surface has a heat capacity almost 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. As a result, the energy that could raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 C will only raise the surface temperature by about 0.001 C even though the energy levels are equivalent. A good analogy would be a container that holds 1 gallon vs. another one that contains 1000 gallons. If you add a quart of water to both containers the first one is 25% full while you’d barely get the bottom wet in the 2nd one.
This small amount of temperature change prevents the air above the surface from warming and the humidity from increasing since those processes are based on temperature and not energy levels.
At night the sun’s energy is eliminated and the atmosphere quickly starts to cool. As it cools the difference in temperature between it and the surface increases and the redirected energy, now stored in the surface, along with the heat built up from daytime heating, start to radiate away (into the atmosphere and then into space). The moisture level of the atmosphere (the dew point) controls how much cooling takes place. When the dew point and the surface temperature are nearly the same, they both radiate energy at the same level. That keeps their temperatures the about same.
Since the atmosphere did not see any increase in temperature during the day from the redirected energy, the dew point is not changed. While it takes longer for the surface to lose its energy due to having significantly more energy than the atmosphere, all the excess energy still gets radiated away. The surface eventually reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere at the about same temperature that would have existed without any redirected energy.
That is the way the redirected energy is removed. The high heat capacity of the surface prevents the added energy from significantly increasing its temperature thus keeping the moisture content of the atmosphere fairly constant. It is this moisture content that determines the equilibrium temperature and that temperature ends up almost the same as it would have been if there was no redirected energy. That means the redirected energy is lost … right out the greenhouse window.
Should we now run all this by John Kerry and ask him if it agrees with “THE science” that JK is wedded to?
(just kiddin’ of course)
Imagine the look on Kerry’s face when he is told the climate crisis is over. In fact, there never was a crisis and all the time he spent on the Paris accord was a complete waste of time.
If my physics is correct climate sensitivity is less than .1 C. In fact, the entire greenhouse theory where GHGs warm the planet 33 C is wrong.
I think the look will be “so, your point is…?”. He is paid to fly around, make speeches, accept awards, be adored and fawned over. Some people call that a “job”, like robbing banks. Morally repugnant but reinforced by all around him
I hope that he stays alive long enough to come to that realization.
Ya mean like Ehrlichman?
If Kerry does not understand the clear contradiction of HIS and Biden’s “negotiations” with China allowing them to emit massive amounts of CO2 until 2030, and his statement this week that the US has only until 2030 to “turn things aground” there is no hope there.
It was not a waste of time. He went to lots of great parties, rubbed elbows with all the beautiful people, flew private for many luxurious hours, and looked down his nose at hoards of unwashed proles. Best time evah.
Kerry doesn’t give a damn what happens. He, and all those others only know of the multitudes that believe, hang-on and actually worship every word of this sort of thing, and those who constantly repeat it. The UN itself claims that climate change/COVID scam-demic isn’t the point. World wide domination is.
Actually, it is not necessarily the programmers, but more the “experts”.
There are a few really good professional programmers out there (not many, a few).
Many models start out being built by computer programmer “hacks” who have no idea of the limitations of computers, computer languages, word size (the number of bits in a typical numeric value) or even the actual difference between real numbers and integer numbers inside a computer.
So, given a bad description of how a system works, lot’s of guesses at important constants, missing natural processes, and then bad math and bad programming within iterative processing – you get garbage. It’s impressive looking garbage and unfortunately many people invest their belief when faced with pretty charts and graphs.
Spending my career doing a lot of programming I read you loud and clear.
As I’m not a scientist I can’t verify what you’re saying but it makes sense to me. I am aware that you are totally correct when you say that the GHE is practically bunk, at least the way that alarmists understand it.
What determines T range is atmospheric pressure, not gas composition, and not CO2 concentration. No doubt about that.
PS ‘Average T’ is a bullshit term, which to me shows a poor understanding of statistics, but I guess it’s a convenient shorthand.
I’m not a scientist either but I’ve spent a lot of time reading about many of the physical characteristics of our atmosphere. I’m hoping someone with more depth in thermodynamics will read my comment and verify or point out where I could be wrong. Too bad RGB (Dr. Robert Brown) isn’t around anymore as he would be the perfect person to comment on my claims.
I was hoping I would see more comments since, if I am right, it completely eliminates any dangerous warming from CO2, methane or any other GHG. It would end the climate debate in favor of skeptics.
I suspect it requires too much detailed knowledge to interest many readers. Maybe I should post it on skeptical science
A greenhouse prevents loss of heat by convection.
CO2 aids convection. It does nothing to warm the earth.
The Earth greenhouse metaphor has never been meant to describe precisely how energy is gained. No climate scientist will claim it is through blocking convection. You are attacking a straw man and won’t get very far.
This is why I came up with the idea to extend their metaphor rather than attack it. My extension shows that energy really is gained by greenhouse gases but then lost at night at surface-atmosphere boundary (what I have called an open window).
But that’s not even correct. The moment the first rays of sunlight reach the surface, all “greenhouse” gasses are fully saturated. You -cannot- gain energy.
This is a marvelous analogy. The jerks doing climate models and pontification need to visit the AppHarvest 60 acre greenhouse in Morehead, Kentucky. You are right, greenhouses are active systems that control and stabilize their environment.
I’ve come up with a simple description of the CO2 climate sensitivity..
– Adding more CO2 increases the Green House Effect (GHE) which prevents energy from radiating to space.
– Radiation physics computes a warming of about 1.2 C per doubling of CO2 for Earth’s atmosphere. However, Earth is a combination of the planet itself and the atmosphere.
– The surface of planet Earth has a heat capacity more than 1000x greater than the atmosphere.
– Assume a 20 C temperature for the atmosphere/surface before the CO2 increase.
– When CO2 is doubled the atmosphere’s temperature is raised to 21.2 C while the surface is still at 20 C.
– This temperature difference, a thermodynamic imbalance, causes energy to flow from the atmosphere to the surface.
– The two objects will find a thermodynamic balance when they are the same temperature. In this case, due to the TOTAL heat capacity, that will be 20.001 C !!!!!!
– The actual warming turns out to be 0.001 C per doubling of CO2.
No need to remove the energy as I was showing previously, it is trivial compared to the surface heat capacity. The planet will now radiate at this high temperature which no one will notice.
I realize this appears to show that climate science never factored in the heat capacity of the surface in any of their calculations. That seems unlikely but I don’t know how else to explain the results of Seim/Olsen 2020 without assuming the heat is being absorbed by the walls of the experimental containers.
“The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days. 30 years ago, the best was 5 days. We often criticize climate models for their attempts to forecast 10, 50, 100 years into the future…So much for model forecasting”
Warning, warning; strawman alert. ‘Meteorlogist’ malignantly suggests climate and weather are the same thing. You think he’d know the difference.
LOL! I did no such thing, “Loydo” offers a substance-free criticism. At least I can spell meteorologist, you, not so much.
And one other thing, I have the courage to put my name to my words, you don’t. You take cowardly potshots from behind a pseudonym. Step up, or shut up.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
Yes, you did, see below; the direct comparison of climate models and weather forecasts is in bold:
Furthermore, this below is a display of how ridiculously clueless you are in even the freshman level of physics:
If you’re going to split this hair, you might as well respond to the Nigerian Prince. His model claims he’s got millions of dollars to split with you. You only need to send a deposit via Western Union.
Hair splitting? About a thing that is emphasized 10000000 times by scientists?
Now I’ve finally worked it out why you trolls are always so much at odds with the majority. Certainly you’re all having terrible difficulties wrapping your tiny brains around the fact that nothing is happening that cannot easily be explained by natural variation. But apart from that, you have seriously limited English skills.
We’re meant to trust modeled projections, forecast 10, 50 and 100 years, with far more variables affected by time, yet he says; “is instructive to look at what happens just a month ahead.”. That’s known as a contrast, not a “direct comparison”, as you sated.
Oh … and BTW, for all intents and purposes chaos and entropy are colloquially indistinguishable. Humor is considered informal.
Well, scientists say otherwise. If you mix up weather forecasts and climate models, please do not wonder why people think you’re an idiot.
Chaos has a very well defined meaning w/r/t dynamic systems like weather. This genius was talking about ““chaos” of dynamic weather systems“. If you use it as a synonym for entropy (another very well defined concept) in the same sentence, please do not wonder why people think you’re an idiot.
Uhm, er, so, if not climate models, what do weathermen use? The “presence” principle? You know, if four of the six guys in the office today agree it will rain, you mark it on the map: “60% rain”?
You, sir, have not a mote of poetry in your soul. “split his hair” was more humorous than even your most fantastic “fact check”.
But I digress, tell me how much you trolls earn, and where can I get in on it?
Weather models. Gee, you could’ve guessed that.
??? Who the fcuk talks about this (apart from you)? (Well, Ed Zuijderwuldermulder actually calculated probability of model validity essentially that way here, and I’m not kidding now 🙂 )
“…Who the fcuk talks about this (apart from you)…” Is that the best insult you can come up with?
You truly are a humourless sod!
“Scientists say” all sorts of things. Most of the scientists on this forum would agree with Tony’s statement. They’d be right. You are the odd person out, here. It’s you who looks like an idiot. Climate is merely the weather at a particular location over time. You AGW true believers have been mixed up about what climate is for decades.
We understand that your English isn’t always up to the task, so we’ll overlook your confusion with chaos and entropy. However, when you persist with your error after numerous corrections … it’s you who is the idiot.
Most of the scientists on this forum are not experts of the required fields. Their agreement is irrelevant.
Yep, that’s true. At last…
Climate is more or less “averages” like precipitation in mm (with spread) or average temperature etc, etc. This is a simplification but similar to what actual scientists mean by it. For Texas this is well detailed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Texas . Climate predictions are extremely good, scientists can tell you these variables with high precision for years ahead. But they can’t tell you whether it will be raining at a certain location at a certain date in the future. Now this is weather. Even you should be able to understand by now.
This has nothing to do with my English. I’ve just realized that most of you don’t know jack shit about “chaos”, not even the popular definitions. You were plainly wrong. Furthermore, you were wrong when you tried to downplay this as a colloquialism. Watts evidently didn’t intend it to be a colloquialism. And anyway, there are times when certain colloquialisms are inappropriate. This was such a time.
One doesn’t need to be an expert to be right, but enough here are experts to satisfy the truth of my statement.
I already know what climate is, son … I don’t need your tortured explanation. Clearly you do not. There are no “climate predictions”. The planet does not have a climate. Climate is always regional or local. I don’t know why you persist, considering you people have managed to get absolutely everything wrong for close to 50 years, so clearly you have no idea what climate is.
The debate on chaos vs. entropy is closed … you lost.
And a dead clock is right twice a day. In a field of natural science experts are the people who are right.
No. Actual experts are extremely rare in the denial-sphere. And for a reason 🙂
You know jack sh*t, furthermore I’m not your son. That would be a tragedy. Dealing with that genetic trash, ugh…
See? That’s why I’m telling you that you don’t know sh*t.
Another good illustration.
Richard Feynman on scientific method …
The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman – YouTube
I’m not aware of a thing called “the denial-sphere”. I guess only logic denialists like you can join that.
The use of “son” as I used it is intended to be patronizing to someone with an obvious handicap (yours being intellect). It’s meant as a put down. Yes, I do know “jack sh*t” and much else besides, unlike you.
“The debate on chaos vs. entropy is closed … you lost.”
Indeed … another illustration of you losing a debate.
FYI Feynman was famous about debunking pseudo scientists like these here at WUWT. I recommend you to avoid covering your sorry ass with his name.
Yep, most patients with mental health problems claim something similar about their problems. You are a denier squared, or a meta denier. A real acrobat.
But you failed, that’s it. With bad genes, this is inevitable.
Dear gawd … do you even try to edit your atrocious English? Clearly you didn’t watch the film clip. Feynman would have had a field day with you true believers who never saw a logical fallacy they didn’t like. You not only have no idea what the scientific method is; you don’t even know where to find it.
I’ll have to defer to your intimate acquaintance with mental illness. I hope things begin to improve for you. As for being patronizing, sorry, I can’t help it with an obvious juvenile like you. Clearly I’m not alone in that feeling here.
“This genius”? Nyolci or whatever your actual name is, I find that you are taking full advantage our host’s gracious belief in allowing free speech on his website by hiding behind your keyboard, flinging ad hominems because of perceived grammatical errors or what are in your opinion non sequitors. I’ve been laying low of late, not posting as much as in the past-but reading this pushed my Sicilian heritage blood to boil. You of the extreme Left (or is it purely Socialist?) mindset have been emboldened by recent victories in the self-proclaimed “Great Reset”. So, here you are, rudely attempting to blast Mr. Watts on his own website. Back it down a notch, stay on point, present your “facts” in a fashion understandable to all, and participate in a scientifically based discourse and we’d all appreciate what you write a bit more. Leave the playground bully stuff behind and where it belongs, back in your childhood. I’m sure Mr. Watts would welcome you into his self-created world of WUWT with open arms. Right now, you are acting The Troll.
Regards,
MCR
No, that’s wasn’t a grammatical error. That was a serious error.
Communist.
What the fcuk is this? FYI Joe Biden is as right as you. But I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
No. I’m debunking the bs he and his ilk are disseminating here.
I’m always on the point.
I try to. Well, scientific discourse is not for anyone, I’ve had to realize this.
This is not that. Sadly.
I don’t give a flying fcuk whether you appreciate or not. Whether your Sicilian blood or other organs start to boil. Sorry. This is far too important than your idiocy.
WUWT is a propaganda site. It’s not for you or most of the usual patrons. You’re simply the cannon fodder here. The filling. It’s for normal people who search for something climate related and happen to find this page, so WUWT and the numberless similar sites can incite “doubt”. And for the real paymasters behind climate science denial to claim there’s doubt. I’m here to get this bullshit challenged.
And yet it is the single most informative and well visited site on the subject on the internet. It is hosted by a climate scientist (regardless what you want to believe) and enjoys the patronage of an international collection of all varieties of scientist. Its guest writers cover the entire field of climate science. All manner of published works are made available here for general perusal and peer review.
That’s very odd, because from the perspective of those here, you’re nothing but an uninformed troll, intent on spreading the myths of “settled climate science”. You’re more amusement than anything else.
Even the UN no longer believes that “climate” matters. The entire goat rodeo has always been nothing but a means to redistribute wealth and control people. There is no “crisis” nor has there ever been … and nothing indicates there will be any time soon.
Yeah, sure 🙂
Like Clueless Willis? Or P. Gosselin, who lost a bet lately and had actually to pay for his idiocy? ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/02/dont-climate-bet-against-the-house/ )
I guess the latter is done by Lord Monckey, who is a hereditary peer.
Well, no. A friend of yours, another genius here, I can’t remember his name, admitted that he would have his nerves tick and his stomach go uneasy when he spots my name. You clearly are afraid of me 🙂 And this is the intended effect.
Yeah, sure 🙂 I have to warn you delusions can signify serious mental problems.
Yeah, right, I’m afraid I’ll die laughing at your grasp of basic concepts. If you didn’t exist we’d have to invent you just for comedy relief. You’re one of our token true believers, allowed to exist here as an illustration of what can happen when one lives in a fantasy world.
“Even the UN no longer believes that “climate” matters.”
The evidence —
Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N. s IPCC Working Group III, said:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy… We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Poor you … lost another round.
But now you cry… Actually, “comedic relief”, that’s correct English.
It’s beyond me why this single quote means “even the UN no longer believes that “climate” matters“. But I guess another quote from this guy would rectify your garbled brain:
“Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position.”
Actually, NO! “Comedic” has quite a different meaning than comedy or comic, and does not mean funny. I used ‘comedy’, in the general sense. Comic would have been equally correct, but specific to you.
The thing is; no one is denying that climate can cause problems and can change, but “climate change”, in and of itself, cannot be problematic. That would be like saying the seasons are a problem. Using “climate change” in the sense used by warmist true believers is an equivocation … an appeal to ambiguity … and misleading.
You’re not doing well today, are you? You’re such an easy target.
Oops, you were right. A rarity… You should open a bottle of champaigne.
Do not address this to me, this comes from the UN. The UN of yours.
Did you mean Champagne? Of course I’m right. I have been right non stop throughout this amusing exchange.
Why wouldn’t I direct it to you? It was you who posted it. I don’t have a UN, but clearly you do, because every thought you have regarding climate was systematically installed in your brain through 30 years of skilled propaganda. You’re nothing but a sack of UN real-politic.
Oh, yes 🙂 my bad…
You claimed “Even the UN no longer believes that “climate” matters.” I demonstrated with a single quoted sentence that this was false. You (being a good denier) couldn’t grasp this and started to attack the sentence, not the fact that this was only used to demonstrate the UN did believe that climate mattered. The factual content of the UN’s assertion was irrelevant for the argument. The only thing that was relevant was that the UN cared about this.
You did nothing of the sort. You only thought you did, like all your other errors I’ve corrected.
The UN does not believe that climate matters (I provided a quote to prove it). It’s their cause that matters. Only useful idiots still haven’t worked out that this planet’s many climates are just fine. There is no crisis. Warming and increased CO2 are both beneficial.
And what’s their (supposedly climate?) cause that matters? You are getting more and more incoherent.
Climate never had anything to do with their cause, to begin with. “Global cooling”/warming/AGW/”climate change” is an expedient issue used to foment the support of the true believers. “The Cause” is the globalist Agenda 21/30, proposed at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit , by Maurice Strong. The Ottmar Edenhoffer quote I used refers to that.
“Climate change” is an equivocation intended to rally the brain dead to give up their freedoms and their government’s resources. It’s a tautology, as used, and has no real meaning. No one actually denies that climates change.
Even if it’s true, it’s completely irrelevant. The fact of climate change is independent of how good or bad the possible answer you perceive.
Following this logic you should be the loudest AGW proponent.
Perhaps that’s why they talk about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Of course its relevant, you fool. It indicates that this entire goat rodeo has been sociopolitical from the start. “Climate change” is a tautology. You might as well have said “the fact of weather”.
There is no anthropogenic global warming that anyone can find (no evidence). All the logic in the world can’t fix that.
And just before that over 80% of you fools talked about “global cooling”. Now it’s “climate change” where warming is causing cooling. There is no evidence that rising CO2 is causing warming … or anything but greening.
Haha, try to turn the table? But you can’t, you’re the resident idiot here 🙂
Perhaps you mix cause and effect? Perhaps you don’t have a clue about solutions that don’t involve green bullshiting? Perhaps both? Very likely both, ‘cos you’re both ignorant and stupid.
Yes, and the Earth is flat, and god created it 4000 years ago etc., the usual bullshit.
Haha, try to turn the table? But you can’t, you’re the resident idiot here.”
You really need to have someone help you with the comprehension. Isn’t there a grownup who can assist you?
Is that the best you can do? Are you entirely unable to provide a response other than childish ad hominem?
If that’s what you believe, this isn’t the place for you. There are numerous places where such ideas are welcomed.
Yes, I do! 🙂 Just kidding 😉 You conveniently left out the end of the sentence, oh boy, this is “getting something out of context”, well, well, you naughty boy
Clearly that’s what you believe. It follows, since your belief in AGW is religious with no valid scientific support.
. I’m here to get this bullshit challenged.
Seriously ???? 😀
If you don’t like BS stop to share your own.
You imagine to have some knowledge, but certainly cannot compete in reference to quality.
I don’t share anything that is mine. I only share scientific opinion. And that is certainly NOT bullshot 🙂
What is the optimum concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere?
Over 9000!
Our planet has become dangerously skilled at sequestering the one compound we cannot do without … CO2. I don’t know what the “optimum” is, but it sure wasn’t 280 ppm, regardless what the true believers think. Our interglacial is already in late middle age, so if CO2 actually has some warming effect, then bring it on. What’s now happening in Texas is warning enough.
Huh, you’ve caught me! You’re a genius!
He might be. You’re not.
@Loydo
“… suggests climate and weather are the same thing. “
Climate is weather, in a mathematical sense. It is the set of weather conditions, an equivalence relationship, over all likely weather conditions for a given location or epoch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
“I did no such thing…”
Yes you did, to two orders of magnitude.
They said:
“February 2021 may be warmer than average.” Were they wrong about February? It looks likely given this unexpectadly cold weather event, but you could at least wait until the end of the month before you start pontificating about their errors with any certainty.
But, astonishing coming from a meteorolgist, you go even further:
“So much for model forecasting skill less than a month ahead.”
and in the same breath:
“But we are expected to believe unverified climate models have useful forecast skill years, decades, or even a century in advance.
So now a cold snap refutes all models? You know there’s a difference between local, short term weather modelling and climate modelling right? Impossible to tell from the “substance” of this post.
You’re talking about a local weather forcasts when you say:
“The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days. 30 years ago, the best was 5 days.” You would know full well how useful meteorologists find modelling and how accurate they are getting. Are they infallible? No. Have global climate models improved too? Yes. Are they infallible? No. Does that make a “mockery” of them and thus invalidate all models, global, local or any other type? You’re insinuating it does.
The “substance” was your own words. Your headling “Nature makes a mockery of models” is specifically citing the unusally cold weather in one region as evidence questioning whether any model can be “believed”.
Sure, be objectively critical of computer forecasting accuracy but how about you quit this incessant, illogical and increasingly vitriolic attack on climate modelling.
There are hundreds of anonymous posters on this site and you don’t seem to have any problem with their anonymity…until they disagree. So I’ll add double-standards to my list of criticisms.
Climate modeling is crap, all your blahblah and crying does not change that. It is entertaining to watch you twist&turn.
No. Not even in a mathematical sense. Scientists (I mean the real ones) are very clear about this.
“Scientists (I mean the real ones) are very clear about this.”
You seem to be saying that if you do not agree with ‘real’ scientists (whoever they are) then your assertions are wrong. That is nonsense. Mathematics is the language of science for all scientists, even if they do not agree with another (which happens a lot).
Climate can be defined mathematically as an equivalence class of sets of likely weather conditions for a given location or epoch. In that sense any scientist can say Antarctic climate is equivalent to {‘very cold’, ‘icy’, ‘windy’, ‘calm’, ‘sunny’, ‘cloudy’}.
These relations are falsifiable (unlike many Climatism assertions). For example, Antarctic climate is not equivalent to {‘hot’, ‘dusty’} because those weather conditions not likely to occur in the Antarctic region.
Do you not agree? 😐
Exactly. Science is such.
Yes. I’m waiting for your rigorous mathematical proof that “climate is weather”. I know very well that I can wait forever. Let’s forget about this below for your own good:
If defined so, then a certain climate is a set. A set of people is not equal to a certain person who happens to be a member of that set. At least mathematically speaking. It’s customary in certain fields that they represent an equivalence class with a “representative member” of that class but this is out of question for climate.
Do you not agree? 🙂
People here like to throw around notions they don’t really understand. You can’t “falsify” a valid mathematical proof you genius. Falsification only applies to observational hard sciences. It means there may be evidence to the contrary for a theory. Early string theory collapsed due to the COBE satellite measurements ‘cos the theory had had a significantly different prediction for the characteristics of cosmic microwave background. This was an example for falsification. All the mathematical proofs were correct but the prediction for a certain phenomenon didn’t match observation. Climate science of course has falsifiable assertions. They say this or that variable has this or that value with a 9x% confidence band. Each and every observation happened to be inside (usually well at the center) of the corresponding prediction band. If variables tend to leave these bands persistently, that would be falsification.
” I’m waiting for your rigorous mathematical proof that “climate is weather”.”
‘climate’ and ‘weather’ are meteorological terms which have ‘defined’ meaning. Definitions are not theorems, so you can’t ‘prove’ them. You merely agree that they are defined correctly (or not) and use them to make observations and assertions.
So I merely used those terms to define an equivalence relationship upon them, in the sense that ‘climate’ is the set of ‘weather’ conditions that are likely to occur over some given region or epoch. How is that wrong?
“You can’t “falsify” a valid mathematical proof you genius.”
A weather forecast can be made by calling mathematical functions. (In math, all functions are also relations.) In any case, a forecast is ‘falsified’ if the predicted weather conditions fail to occur. We can further ‘validate’ the algorithm, in the sense that it made the expected calculations. But that doesn’t prove that the forecast will always be correct.
I don’t think you know the difference between mathematical and scientific proof. In math, proof of theorems are absolute, given a consistent set of rules and axioms. In science there is no absolute proof, the mathematical sense. A scientific theory is considered true only if it makes predictions consistent with observations, and is not otherwise falsified (for example by failing to predict or explain observations).
The equivalence of two definitions is a theorem if you can prove that. So you’re wrong again.
I didn’t claim it was wrong. For the purposes of this conversation it was perfect, especially because you unwittingly dug your own grave with this definition. You see, a set of X (at least in the dominant ZFC set theory of today) cannot be an X itself. The set of people of your school class is not one of your classmates. Climate (a set of a set of weather conditions) projections are clearly not weather (a set of weather conditions) forecasts. I think I’ve just proved that in the axiom system of yours. It was easy.
I kindly advise you to stop deepening your own grave.
Oops, your last paragraph looks to be correct except for the first sentence that’s pure bs. But if you know this, why do you bullshit about “many Climatism assertions” being non-falsifiable?
“The equivalence of two definitions is a theorem if you can prove that.”
Nonsense. That might be true in a formal system, with formally defined symbols, axioms and rules. But ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ are, mathematically, informal terminology, not defined in any such formal system. Science is an experimental, model-based methodology. The laws of physics are not expressed as theorems. They are mathematical equations whose truth is discovered by experiment and observation.
” … why do you bullshit about “many Climatism assertions” being non-falsifiable?”
Because I believe there is really no compelling proof of a CO2-induced climate crisis. Climatists assert that there is a crisis because they say current temperatures and sea levels are ‘unprecedented’, but try to stifle skepticism, discussion or arguments against this claim. Because they say the “science is settled”. In other words, their words and actions show they will not permit this so-called crisis to be falsified.
@me
“Climatists assert that there is a crisis because they say current temperatures and sea levels are ‘unprecedented’…”
I must be careful in how I state this, or you will say “Johanus does not believe there are climate crises!”
Of course, I believe earthquakes, typhoons, forest fires, blizzards and such have caused disasters in the past. My point is that I see no compelling proof that increased level of CO2 necessarily causes these disasters.
To see that, if we find temperatures and sea levels were higher a thousand or two thousand years ago, when CO2 levels were ‘normal’, then that would quickly defuse the climatists main talking point, ‘unprecedented’. That is why they tend to claim these ancient warming episodes did not exist, or were only local in scope. In other words, the CO2 climate crisis theory will not be falsified.
The actual driver in “climate crisis” is the 24/7 news cycle, nothing to do with Co2 or the Sun. Got to fill all those hours which people pay for on the cable/satellite TV bills.
Hey, you insisted on using mathematical definitions 🙂 So we are in a formal system now, right? And anyway, outside a formal system (but still inside natural science like climate science), the equivalence of two definitions is still something that needs proving, right?
Be certain that these terms are well defined in the respective fields. But apart from that, you started to bullshit about how you could prove mathematically that these were equivalent, right? With those equivalence classes, right? So at least be a bit more consistent and don’t try to change topic when I prove you wrong, please!
The laws of physics are expressed as theorems and axioms. Physics is the most “mathematised” scientific field, actually historically it was (and in some extent still is) the most important driver for developing mathematics itself. It may not be expressed as a fully formal system, but hey, show me a branch of mathematics that is expressed (and pursued!) absolutely formally (like a formal language)! Large scale formalization only has a few decades of history at the most, and for a good reason: even very simple and self evident things need surprisingly long proofs so mathematicians don’t bother themselves proving these. You may want to read about Mizar, Coq, etc. (actual formalisations of maths) or read some of the very interesting papers of Leslie Lamport about rigor in mathematical publishing.
A mathematical equation is a mathematical theorem or axiom, be assured (ie. you either postulate it or prove it). And yes, experiments and observations are used to discover laws that constitute the axioms of the mathematical models of Physics. But from that point on you have a formal system and you can have purely mathematical deductions in that model (a formal system). This is the most important difference between natural sciences and social sciences. Deductions. Okay, most fields are still mostly in the purely observational-experimental stage like Biology. And Physics has 2 mathematical models (Quantum mechanics and Relativity), and in practice most people use a 3rd one, a very good approximation of these two, the Newtonian model. So things are not quite finished.
Science is indifferent towards your beliefs.
Well, no. Climate scientists.
Not really. That’s why you should read them instead of bullshiting. They mostly warn about a future crisis.
No. They are much more concerned about future sea levels and future temperatures, but they explicitly state that the most concerning problem is the rate of change, that is extremely high.
They stifle bullshit, not scientifc skepticism, discussion or arguments.
Science is hard, no wonder most people (including you) are confused. Observational laws are the results of “scientific settlements”. Like the law of energy conservation. These are, subsequently, the axioms of the mathematical models. Numerical approximations are widely used instead of formal proofs ‘cos they match extremely well the observations. THESE ARE THE SETTLED THINGS IN SCIENCE, for fcuk’s sake. Yes, there is a probability of a “settlement” being wrong. For the fundamental laws, this probability is essentially zero. Go “falsify” the law of energy conservation. For other fields this is higher but be assured, it’s still very-very low. Like for Climate Science.
Your “real scientists” are little more than shamans, promoting their paganism.
Their approach is to put a veneer of technology upon their belief that “we must have angered the gods!”, in this case, Mother Gaia.
Climate is 30 years of weather history for a given place / region, not more, not less.
At least 30 years. And boy, this last 30-40 year period was awesome!
Ah “nyolci” see here’s the thing, and there’s no way of getting around this. I just don’t give a shit what you think, especially when you are too cowardly to put your real name to your words like I do. And then there’s this:
Is entropy a chaos?
The more disordered something is, the more entropic we consider it. In short, we can define entropy as a measure of the disorder of the universe, on both a macro and a microscopic level. The Greek root of the word translates to “a turning towards transformation” — with that transformation being chaos.
Entropy is basically the number of ways a system can be rearranged and have the same energy. Chaos implies an exponential dependence on initial conditions. Colloquially they can both mean “disorder” but in physics they have different meanings.
Splitting hairs to score point while posting with a fake name, how “brave”. LOL.
And the climate models are in fact derived from weather models, the only difference is the time scale.
Mega-fail of your part.
Would putting my name change the veracity of my thoughts? What a dumb argument… But let’s make a deal. If you get me some of the fossil fuel industry / conservative think tank funding you get, I’ll put my name on my posts here.
No. In Physics, chaos of dynamic systems has a very well defined meaning. And it is very often emphasized that weather is a chaotic system. When they say that they mean weather conforms to specific set of criteria (expressed with eg. Lyapunov exponents). You don’t want to say “entropy aka chaos” of dynamic systems if you want to look knowledgeable.
Again, you’re exposing your ignorance. If we disregard some technical challenges (like weather models are likely to have much better resolution) climate model results are the “averaging” (complicated) of numberless model runs. They are not some kinda predictions of whether there’s rain at 11 am on 12th of April, 2058. They give you information about precipitation in 2058 with a certain confidence. etc.
Quote.
“Would putting my name change the veracity of my thoughts? What a dumb argument… But let’s make a deal. If you get me some of the fossil fuel industry / conservative think tank funding you get, I’ll put my name on my posts here.”
Hmm, be careful what you wish for there, the option to give you some, without a limit, is thus left to the other party to decide the amount. So 1$ will be sufficient for you to remove your anonymity.
If Anthony hasn’t got it to hand, I am happy to stump up. 🙂
Well, I’m waiting for his offer. Gonna consider 🙂
“You don’t want to say “entropy aka chaos” of dynamic systems if you want to look knowledgeable.” –nyolci
There, boy, lies the root of your confusion; people who build and maintain their own websites, generally do not do so to “look clever” but to disseminate (subjectively, sure) disseminate important information to as wide an audience as possible, with whatever level of ‘common sense’ as they dare include around their own definition of ‘common sense’.
In other words, bro’ (say bra), stop editing other people’s grammar, spend the time creating those perfect essays you are going to publish any day now, riiiight?
I’m not confused.
Being called out for disseminating bullshit (as it has just happened) then doesn’t surprise them. Watts seems to be very well used to it.
I didn’t edit his grammar.
Scientists have been creating those perfect essays for decades in climate, no need for me in that. I’m just pointing that out for this confused herd.
“Entropy is basically the number of ways a system can be rearranged and have the same energy.”
What in the hell are you talking about?
Stay away from physics…
Actually Anthony is paraphrasing the famous Boltzmann Equation, S=k logW, which is chiseled on Ludwig Boltzmann’s tombstone.
It states that entropy S is logarithmically proportional to W, which stands for the German word Wahrscheinlichkeit. We usually translate that word as ‘probability’, which is usually expressed as a fraction on the unit interval. But that would make the expression negative, so obviously Boltzmann wrote W to represent the positive number of ways the system state variables can be rearranged.
So I think Anthony nailed it. Derge, you should stay away from physics. 😐
It means the number of microstates that an (observable) macrostate can be in. You don’t rearrange state variables, those are represented by the macrostate (so they are fixed for a certain macrostate). Anthony, this genius said “number of ways a system can be rearranged and have the same energy“, a different assertion. If pressure is twice, volume is half, temperature is the same for an ideal gas, the system’s energy is the same but its macrostate is different, and accidentally its entropy is different as well.
A climate forecast is essentially nothing but an aggregate of weather forecasts.
Chicken Little: “Yes we have been wrong 30 years out of 30 years, but the average should be correct.”
Yes, kinda. See? In other words, climate is not weather. I have an average amount of money around $1000 every month. It doesn’t tell us much about how much money I have now at the moment.
If that was your idea of an analogy to distinguish between weather and climate, you need some serious English remediation.
In fact, climate IS weather. Here’s another quick fact … this planet doesn’t have one, but it does have weather.
Huh, the denier confusion must’ve had an unusual effect on you. I advise you to stop drinking for a while.
Considering that you people believe consensus is what validates science, compare your ratings to mine. I must be right because no one believes a thing you say.
Hell you’re a three time loser … handicapped in science, logic and English.
Your rating is negative at the moment I’m writing this 🙂
You have well in excess of 100 negatives, but your response does highlight the way you people think and do math. You don’t even understand the meaning of consensus.
Wrong
You’re innumerate as well as semi-literate. My rating is nearly +100 on this thread.
Actually no, but this is kinda complicated and paradoxically quite simple. A problem is that you are unable to understand even very simple explanations… Okay, let’s give it a try: a fundamental law of physics, the law of energy conservation is the result of consensus. Along with a lot of other laws. These consensus-laws give us the axioms of the various mathematical models of physics. Now climate is so complicated that we can only use numerical approximations instead of [syntactical derivations, ie. proofs] even in these mathematical models. There’s consensus among scientists (not just climate scientists) that these numerical approximations, if done carefully, are just as good as proofs. This consensus is extremely well supported by observations etc.
Whoa … whoa, let me stop you right there. The Law of Conservation of Energy was first stated in a paper by Julius Mayer in 1842. He certainly didn’t survey his fellow physicists to determine his results. He did experiments and calculations. Just because numerous other scientists have confirmed his results over time doesn’t mean consensus played a part in Mayer’s result. His science is right regardless what others think. So … strike one against your understanding of basic science.
Nonsense. Climate models are badly conceived approximations with little skill and no accuracy, derived from contaminated data, relying on confirmation bias and thoroughly falsified conjecture (GHE). BTW, much of the problem with your models is doctored data and using the wrong variables.
There is agreement among the few scientists who derive their funding from governments using “climate change” as a socioeconomic tool. Consensus is a fallacy and no part of scientific methodology it’s both an appeal to authority and an appeal to numbers. Even “climate change” is a fallacy of equivocation (appeal to ambiguity).
And yet, not one of those “numerical approximations” has ever matched empirical evidence, meaning that they in no way match observations, contrary to what warmist, true believers think.
Yeah, really? Then he just came up with it, and from that point on everybody in Physics suddenly accepted that, right? They said “oh, this sounds good, let’s accept it”? Mayer postulated this (ie. this is an axiom of physics), so he must’ve had an extremely convincing aura or something, right? NO. Please read this very short digest and you will see (if you’re intelligent enough, I have doubts) that when Mayer eventually postulated this as a law, it already had a long and venerable history of research, in other words, he fcukin surveyed his fellow physicists for this result, you doofus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#History
He was a doctor, and his first observations were qualitative about blood oxygen levels (different color, different oxygen level). He had to explicitly learn Physics (ie. “survey his fellow physicists”) after that to precisely state the law that was already more or less known from Lomonosov, Thompson, and their forerunners. Joule essentially stated the law a bit earlier. etc-etc.
But what is more important, his results were accepted because other physicists had similar experiments and thoughts, and this law was the best to match observations. In other words, there was (and is) a consensus concerning energy conservation.
So climate is not complicated? Yeah, you genius 🙂 That’s why Andy May made error after error with even a quite simple analysis of an already existing dataset, right?
Let me quote the next sentence: Rather the focus must be upon the predictionof the probability distribution of the system’s future possiblestates by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
In other words, you can’t say it will be raining this day in 2058 in Mogadishu, but you can calculate a probability distribution for that. You deniers always try to cheat, naughty moefoes 🙂
Why do you always have to rage against the facts? That’s harmful to your (already failing) mental health.
Dear gawd, you don’t even have a working knowledge of basic English. We were discussing the role of “consensus” in science. You brought up ‘conservation of energy’ as an example of consensus. I Illustrated that Mayer didn’t rely on consensus. He followed the scientific method. A consensus is a unanimity of opinion. Science doesn’t rely on opinion. Get back to me once you’ve worked that out. It isn’t the agreement that makes a scientific law. Once again, here’s Richard Feynman on what a scientific “Law” is … pay close attention —
The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman – YouTube
That is merely double talk to cover up the truth of the previous statement. In other words, climate models have no skill at prediction … so they use them to project their fantasies.
Of course that’s possible, but in real life these “probability distributions” have all been wrong, compared to observed measurement … and therefore worthless. As you have claimed, climate is complicated … too complicated for computers to analyze. There are too many variables and they insist on emphasizing the wrong ones, in their limited attempts to model climate.
Models don’t work .. as the IPCC stated decades ago. “Future possible states” can be anything on a very broad spectrum. All they’re doing is choosing the one that suits their agenda. Science requires a higher standard.
No, you didn’t. That’s simple. You cannot be this idiotic. This is why inbreeding is widely considered harmful.
“a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people” Cambridge Dictionary. Nowhere it speaks about unanimity. English, I always say, English! Go learn!
Once again, you should avoid covering your ass with Feynman.
It starts with “rather the focus”. According to the Cambridge dictionary, “used to express an opposite opinion” in this construct. English again…
Facts are stubborn things… You shouldn’t reject them…
So we should use pen and paper? Or what really? Are you really such delusional?
Khm, I would like to quote the relevant IPCC statement:
“[T]he focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Yes, I did illustrate the point, you’re simply not sufficiently literate to understand that you’re wrong.
u·na·nim·i·ty
/ˌyo͞onəˈnimədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: unanimity
agreement by all people involved; consensus.
I use Feynman because he “illustrates” the point that you people are unable to grasp.
Facts are stubborn things… You shouldn’t reject them…
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you. Measured data are facts. “Probability distributions” are not facts. Models are not factual, data is. Is there any way to get these simple truths through that thick layer of stupid you present?
So we should use pen and paper? Or what really? Are you really such [sic] delusional?
We should abandon the mistaken notion that modeled projections founded on conjecture, bad or manufactured data, faulty premises and constructed by agenda driven corrupt “scientists” are not the answer to forecasting.
Keep it up … it’s really fun kicking you around, 🙂
See? This is what I’m talking about why you deniers are always ridiculed and no one takes you seriously. Yes, unanimity implies consensus, but this is the converse what you wanted to prove, you idiot. You claimed “A consensus is a unanimity of opinion”. You deniers keep on making these mistakes in elementary matters. Even if I’m generous and assume you wanted to prove the equivalence of the two, you failed that too.
Models are the interpretation of data, and this is really tiresome. Data nowadays is a bunch of voltage readings. Anything beyond that is model. F = m*a is part of the Newtonian model you idiot. We need a model even to conduct measurements, ie. to get data. Good god…
Oh go away. You can’t even follow a simple discussion without help.
You said: “Nowhere it speaks about unanimity. English, I always say, English! Go learn!”
I responded with a dictionary entry falsifying your statement:
“u·na·nim·i·ty
/ˌyo͞onəˈnimədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: unanimity
agreement by all people involved; consensus.
Then you come back with:
My original statement was:
“I Illustrated that Mayer didn’t rely on consensus. He followed the scientific method. A consensus is a unanimity of opinion. Science doesn’t rely on opinion. Get back to me once you’ve worked that out. It isn’t the agreement that makes a scientific law.”
In other words, I have been consistent throughout. Consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method. No agreement is required. It only takes one person to establish a law, not a committee.
How many times must I school you before you’ll learn to stop saying stupid things?
I can see you have no better idea of what a model or data is than you understand the scientific method.
No bullshit goes unpunished. Give up any hope.
Falsifying? I copied the dictionary entry for “consensus”. It never mentions unanimity. How on Earth do you falsify that? Why do you keep on using words (“Falsifying”) you don’t understand?
Irrelevant. You tried to prove “consensus implies unanimity” with its converse, “unanimity implies consensus” (actually correct but irrelevant). Genius.
Consistently inconsistent. A true WUWT regular.
Okay, back to business. Please check how Mayer “followed scientific method” and how that law had been established, and how it would be accepted. For fcuk’s sake, I can’t get a simpler example! Even in Denierland sometimes you have to face reality!
No bullshit goes unpunished. Give up any hope.
But we get bored punishing you so often and I get tired of trying to instruct you.
You posted an entry that failed to include the word. That doesn’t mean it was not there. I provided a dictionary entry that does include it … twice.
You’re still not getting it. I can see now that English is not your 1st language (hence the silly pseudonym).
Mayer proposed a law following whatever process he used. It has not been falsified. The law still stands. That is how the scientific method works. Consensus had absolutely nothing to do with it.
There was once a collection put together of 100 Authors Against Einstein, meant to criticize his theory of relativity. Einstein’s reaction is wonderful:
If you need further instruction, please go upstairs and ask your mom.
That’s why I’m telling you every time: you can’t even realize you’re wrong.
Gee, again you’re trying to run through a brick wall. Okay, another analogue. BD is for you (Brain Dead, for obvious reasons 🙂 ):
BD: Every animal is a bird.
Ny: No way, look, this is the encyclopedia entry for animal. It says birds are a Class inside the Kingdom of Animalia (actual scientific classification). “Birds” (Aves) is a proper clade together with at least another, Mammalia. So there are animals that are not birds. (“Overwhelming majority is consensus.”)
BD: Look, this is the encyclopedia entry for bird, it says birds are animals! QED.
Okay then, it means there’s a very strong (actually unanimous) consensus regarding this law. Because this is an empirical (observational) law (ie. it is based on experiments), so we cannot be 100% sure whether it holds really every time, for that, we should observer each and every reaction. But the fact that this law turns out to be true so persistently, and the observations reinforce the correctness of the mathematical models where this law is an axiom gives us an extremely strong evidence that we can base our faith (and our unanimous consensus) in this law on.
Stop covering your stupidity with name dropping. BTW Einstein was know to despise idiots like science deniers.
Of course I “can”, if I was, but I’m not. I suggest you go post on some board where you DO speak the language and people don’t understand science.
Your analogy (not “analogue“) is a non sequitur. “I provided a dictionary entry that does include it … twice”. Unanimity is a synonym for consensus. You provided an example that didn’t mention the word, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Again you fail at both English and logic.
So what? That “consensus” has no bearing on the truth of the law. The law is true because it remains unfalsified … nothing more. The entire science world were unanimous in attacking Alfred Wegener’s discovery of “continental drift”. Fifty years later he was vindicated. There is no need for consensus in science.
“There was once a collection put together of 100 Authors Against Einstein, Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, one of them would be enough!”
That was not “name dropping”, you fool. It was an example citing Einstein’s famous quote about why “consensus” is not relevant. Show me an example of Einstein even mentioning “science deniers”.
You need to stop writing anything about science. You know nothing about the subject and combined with your atrocious English, you present as a fool.
Now I have to disagree with you. “analogue: something that is similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail : something that is analogous to something else” Merriam-Webster dictionary. An example: “historical analogues to the current situation.”
https://www.hedleyconsulting.com/consensus-not-synonym-unanimity/
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-consensus-and-vs-unanimity/
“Although most people tend to confuse between consensus and unanimity” like you, dipshit.
Well, there’s a tiny bit of faith that a law will not be falsified in the future. So this is a bit more complicated. There should be a lot of demonstrations for an empirical law so that scientists (the real ones) have enough faith in it (ie. consensus). It’s not like “hey Joe, I’ve just found a counterexample to the law of energy conservation, shit, we have to come up with something”.
That was name dropping and the usual grandstanding one can observe in deniers’ circles. Furthermore the book in question was not an attack from physicists. (ie. this was a shitty example anyway.)
Actually those 100 authors were just like you, early science deniers, so that was a sure mention, albeit not a direct one. Well, a century later we use different terms apparently.
You look pretty butthurt 🙂
Analogue vs. analogyAn analogy is (1) a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar, and (2) a comparison based on such a similarity. An analogue (now usually spelled analog in North America) is something that can be likened to something else by analogy.
https://grammarist.com/usage/analogue-analogy/
con·sen·sus | \ kən-ˈsen(t)-səs \
Definition of consensus1a : general agreement : unanimity the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border— John Hersey
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
Faith has nothing whatever to do with science. “The law is true because it remains unfalsified.” It’s just that simple. Go watch the Richard Feynman film clip, I provided TWICE. You still haven’t done that.
That is NOT what “name dropping” means. At worst it was an appeal to authority. In reality it was illustrating a point using a recognizable authority. Einstein was demonstrating the fallacy of consensus in science. Falsifying a theory or hypothesis only requires one person, not a team.
“Show me an example of Einstein even mentioning “science deniers”
In other words you just lied. Einstein said no such thing.
Nonsense. LOL you can’t see me, you moron.
Yes, exactly. The imaginary conversation was an analogue to our conversation about logical implication and its converse. So I demonstrated an analogy.
I have the feeling that in colloquial English this word has suffered a slight change in meaning compared to the original Latin (and scientific usage). That’s why you are so angrily buzzing about this. FYI Merriam-Webster’s relevant category (1) has the majority meaning as well, even you cited that, so it’s not at all obvious that this word implies “unanimity”.
Well, it’s certainly not appeal to authority. For that you would need Einstein saying what you intend to prove. Now it’s almost unimportant that Einstein probably didn’t say that at all (this is a general problem with Einstein quotes). Because this book was a pseudo scientific bullshit, and it was regarded as such when it was published. It wasn’t some kinda try at “consensus” from scientists. So okay, not “name dropping” but certainly not “appeal to authority” either. I think “grandstanding” is the right word, and I’m pretty sure you agree.
As a side note I’ve just read some excerpts from that book, it’s full of the characteristic denier bullshit, you would love it.
Hey smarty moefoe 🙂 I said “Well, a century later we use different terms apparently.” So I didn’t claim he said “science denier” directly.
🙂 What a butthurt answer
Except you didn’t
Nonsense.
I did and it did. You’re just too stupid to realize it.
You’re lying again, you simple minded ponce.
Okay, let’s walk through again. You can only falsify an observational law. I think we both agree. You can’t falsify a mathematical law that was proved in a consistent formal system. We both agree that the law of energy conservation is an observational law (and subsequently an axiom, a postulate along with a handful of other fundamental laws in the various formal mathematical systems of Physics). I assume up to now we are in agreement, this is something well known for a knowledgeable person like you (just kidding about you, don’t worry 🙂 ).
Okay then, a certain fundamental law remains a law until it’s falsified. In other words we accept this until it turns out to be false. Now for the law of energy conservation this is an extremely small chance that we find it false but this chance is not zero. In other words we have a certain degree of faith in this law, and a general consensus regarding this because we use this law so pervasively in each and every engineering etc work. I think you can understand this too at last. (Maybe I’m optimistic regarding your cognitive abilities… well, we will see, please report on your progress in understanding this above!)
That’s really all you need to know about that.
To come up with a new law
First we guess it
Then we compute the consequences of the guess
Then we compare those results against nature, observation or experiment
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong
In that simple statement is the key to science.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is
It doesn’t matter who you are or how smart you are
It doesn’t matter what your name is
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong
Feynman on Scientific Method. – YouTube
Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists
Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists – YouTube
I have little hope that you’ll be able to grasp these concepts.
Yep. And how do we know if it’s right then, genius? Ah, by the way, Feynman, I’ve actually read some of his works. Unlike you. Okay, back to the topic. How do we know a(n empirical) law is correct? We only have a certain number of “pro” observations, and no “contra” ones so far (I’m counting here too the observationally confirmed predictions of the mathematical models that are built upon this law). So we have confirmation and no counter evidence. But because we haven’t encountered any counter evidence doesn’t mean there’s no counter evidence. Now when the confirmation is so overwhelming like for the fundamental laws of physics, we have a very good faith (and consensus) regarding their validity.
Word salad.
Utter nonsense. “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”. Consensus has no function in science.
You’re talking out of your ass, you fool.
A new pseudonym Griff “nyolci” but still the same paid-for drive-by stupidity.
ic-LOY-n !!
The only way the d’nyholist could ever earn anything is by rampant stupidity.
Its all he/she/it has.
Whatever job, even lavatory brush……. dunning-kruger clicks in !
No, I’m not Griff. Neither Loydo or whoever.
Right … you’re a nobody.
Exactly! 😉 And I tear a new a-hole for you every time we meet! Good work from a nobody 🙂
Hell, you’re not even able to get a simple English expression correct. You’re nothing but a pest with no understanding of the topic.
Another BIG FAIL from the d’nyholist.
Displays just how ridiculously EVIDENCE-FREE and GULLIBLE it is.
I thought climate models were derived from GCM weather models. Are there secret, accurate climate models that only you know about?
Well, lets be fair here, apart from the fact he did no such thing, when you come right down to it climate IS just weather. It is you AGW true believers who have so much difficulty working out the difference when you publish all your record this and record that announcements. You’re addicted to conflating the two terms when it suits your politics.
In any even, you missed the point of the article and the irony went right by you. If they can’t accurately predict a week in advance, there’s no point at all in pretending they can predict a century on.
My basic question to those who say or imply long term climate models are accurate but weather models are not: After what time period – a month, year, decade, twenty years…- do the models become accurate?
Only the initiated ones know, the scientists
“Only the initiated ones know, the scientist”
Surely you meant sciencers*, not scientists, scientists question everything, only sciencers own the unmitigated consensual Truth.
*Sciencery: The magic ability of discretionary funding to prove the truth of whatever the customer pays for. See ‘vaccines’, ‘global warming’ or ‘gender diaspora’.
“…those who say or imply long term climate models are accurate but weather models are not…”
Whose saying that? I’m saying neither is perfectly accurate but both are equally useful. I’m also saying a meteorologist should know better than to conflate the two.
Both are not “equally useful” or the climate models would manage to be correct once in a while. They are not!
Meteorologists rarely “conflate” the two … unless they are among the sad creatures who believe in AGW and faeries at the end of the garden.
Models can never be “accurate”, much less precise. They are estimates which provide a range of possibilities that become broader with time (like a shotgun’s accuracy broadens with distance). They can be a good tool to help set up experiments to offer a look in to see whether you’re in the ballpark or not. For climate … pointless.
“You’re addicted to conflating the two terms when it suits your politics.
Whaat? I’m saying they are completely different animals and its why I’m pointing out Mr Watts is in error by doing exactly what you’re accusing me of. Talk about wrong end of the telescope.
“the point of the article… If they can’t accurately predict a week in advance, there’s no point at all in pretending they can predict a century on.”
You got that right, unfortunately its misleading.
Every time you people utilize the media to excite the populace with “warmest April ever recorded” or “record drought” or “record wild fires” you’re conflating weather and climate. Mr. Watts did no such thing. I already pointed out the difference between comparing and a “contrasting” (which he used). Try to keep up. It’s a tough audience here.
He wasn’t misleading at all. The entire narrative of the AGW fraud is based on selectively gaslighting the uninformed public with scary “predictions” based on failed models that cannot make predictions. The only person misled by Mr. Watts was you, apparently.
By the way, climate IS weather over time. They are NOT “two completely different animals”. If you learned that, perhaps you wouldn’t still be trying to convince everyone of nonsense. The planet is cooling, son, and has been for thousands of years … get used to it.
Ah good, you’ve started learning about Milankovitch cycles.
Sooo much cooling.
Not only was that unsupportable guess work, it was also a non sequitur.
Look up Holocene Thermal Maximum and follow the bouncing ball of diminishing temperatures to the present. Avoid Mikey Mann’s fraudulent (completely falsified) attempts at science. Notice that it IS cooling. Modern warming is fully explained by natural variation.
Climate is what we expect and remember. Weather is what actually happens. There’ll be a quiz later.
and film at 11?
Loydo: So are you saying that GCM’s don’t produce
predictionsprojections of weather, only climate, over years and decades? It’s my understanding climate is supposed to be the average of weather over 30 years. So do climate models do iterations in 30 year increments? I believe I’ve read its more like 30 minute increments. I guess that would mean the average global temperaturepredictedprojected by a GCM for 2100 should be the average of daily temperatures projected for Jan 1, 2085 through Dec. 31, 2115. Or do they just give us the average they calculate for the year 2100? That ought to be accurate to within 0.1 C.“So are you saying that GCM’s don’t produce
predictionsprojections of weather.Stop conflating climate with weather. I can predict my average April temperature decades into the future with an accuracy of not much more than +/- 1C, but thats my average March climate, its quite predictable. I can also predict the temperature for April 15, but only to an accuracy of maybe +/- 5C at best. A weather model wont be any more accurate than my guess at a range of two months.
And yet you keep being wrong, over and over. Almost as if that is your goal.
You’re still confused between the meanings of prediction and projection. Until you learn those two concepts you’re talking nothing but gibberish.
A climate model will never be accurate. However they are precise (all projections fall outside the true value, equally).
Oh Loydo aka Griff, you are nothing more than a paid shill for the CCP.
Loydo is not griff; griff is a moron, while Loydo is a nasty moron
Too hard to admit that the Weather Channel was out to lunch with that forecast, Loydo? I beat their forecast hands down, and I made mine in late December and again in early January.
You’ve completely missed my point which is that the accuracy of short term weather forecasts bears absolutely no relation to the accuracy of long-term climate forecasts, something you’d think a meteorlogist might know.
Your models are all wrong, that never changes. Weather or climate is irrelevant, your models are wrong.
I’d say your point is moot, considering not one climate model has ever shown the least amount of accuracy.
Oddly enough, you are right about that, but for the wrong reasons. Short term weather forecasts are often right. Long-term climate forecasts don’t work at all so they clearly bear no relation.
Warning, warning….Loy-idiot alert !!!
Loy-dumbest makes yet another totally IRRELEVANT and EVIDENCE-FREE comment.
So Loydo, how would you have us apply or otherwise use the models to prep for their predicted outcome?
If we can’t apply the output of the model, the model is as useless as a debate on a blog.
“how would you… prep”
I’m making it up as I go.
It doesn’t really matter why to become less reliant and more self-sufficient, but how: the knowledge. This guy has tons of useful tips and he’s fairly easy to listen to, but there are plenty of others. https://www.youtube.com/user/CanadianPrepper33
Its not like; There shall be Uninterrupted, Exponential, Economic Growth is chiseled into some sacred tablet and a society or an individual who has forgotten how to live any other way, like how to feed themselves, is highly vulnerable.
John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) is probably rolling over in his grave. R.I.P. John, I’m sure there are many people who miss you.
The reason I became a metrologist instead of a meterologist was that I could not bring myself ethically to take dollars in exchange for being 50% wrong all the time. As I woke up this morning to the wet ground of the overnight rain when yesterdays forecast was for clear and sunny skies, I was reminded again of my correct choice.
Your comment reminds me of the title of a book written by Cleveland, OH meteorologist Dick Goddard, “Six Inches of Partly Cloudy”, a reference to hard to predict lake effect snow showers off of Lake Erie.
I live in SW Ohio. It is not unusual for a 5-day forecast to change every day up to a target day that is important for planning purposes, and then sometimes even miss the forecast on the final day! Temperatures have a pretty good record, but then similar results could probably be obtained from just historical records. It is my opinion that precipitation forecasts have a high false-positive rate for regions with four seasons. And, all this with weather satellites, Doppler radar, and instantaneous communication of all the requisite weather parameters.
and I only studied to become an economist to make weather forecasters look good 🙂
The forecast from the Climate Predicted Center in mid January showed above, but the updates on on February 1st showed a high probability of lower than normal temps. In short, they had nearly a week notice but it appears to have been ignored. I wish I had a link to the Feb 1 update.
For nearly all of February, the prediction was colder than normal for the affected area.
Also according to the CPC, it will be a cold start to March as well for the western third or so of the country.
Yea! Pummel them about the head and shoulders, Anthony, the crass stupidity of predicting climate many years down the road is clearly illustrated by your posting. I wonder if this will come to the attention of Climate Czar John Kerry, who has now engineered the return of the US to the Paris Accord? There a lot of colors so he might understand it?
“I wonder if this will come to the attention of Climate Czar John Kerry…”
Not likely, as Upton Sinclair said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Kerry is as phony as his head of dark hair which he is sporting of late.
It’s entirely predictable the weather ‘experts’ predict warmer than usual temperatures.
It’s what they do.
Yes,they just put out a new forecast today saying Oklahoma and Texas will be warmer than normal in the coming weeks. That’s usually what happens after an arctic front comes through, it warms up.
It’s quite obvious they’re intentionally trying to create the impression that there’s unusual warming going on. Take this ‘warmer than normal’ phrase for example. I’ll bet my bottom dollar they don’t mean it’s going to be outside the 95th percentile or anything like that, but that it might be warmer than _average_. But then, so what if it is? It seems clear they’re framing things the way they are to give the (false) impression something unusual is going on
In NZ our state broadcaster weather man tells us that it’s ‘warmer than it _should_ be’, which makes no sense.
I can’t believe they’re not breaching broadcasting standards by using such misleading language.
It’s warmer than average almost 50% of the time. Same with colder than average.
But they really butcher logic and language when they say it will be unseasonably cold this time of year. Just what do they think the right season is for cold weather?
I can confidently forecast two temperatures across the globe. There will be a number of tropical warm pools limiting SST to 30C. There will be sea ice/ocean interface at -2C. I can check if I am correct:
Yep, just like yesterday and the day before and the week before.
Given that I know the oceans are well distributed across the globe and most of the heat available to the global surface is in the top 100m mixed layer of the oceans (on average) I am going to take a stab at the global average surface temperature being:
Global Average Surface Temperature = {30 + (-2)}/2 = 14C
It was 14C last year and will be 14C in 2100 – putting aside homogenisation.
Chinese get a tick for being closest to the correct answer but still wrong because their model still does the unphysical.
A good post RichWill.
Your prediction on SST at around 30C is BOUND to be right; as this stems from the Antoine equation of water vapour pressure v temperature where between around 25C to 30C the vapour pressure starts to go through the roof. This in turn escalates the evaporation rate to match any incoming radiation for dissipation into the atmosphere and beyond to space. The equilibrium position of the temperature being around this 30C.
One really doesn’t need to bury one’s head in data and statistics to come to that conclusion.
As for the ice/ocean figure of -2C I suspect the same principle applies; but have not checked on this.
This why the oceans never get much above 30C in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation and why it is a waste of time trying to boil a pan of water with a blow lamp on the surface.
Regards
Alasdair
Meanwhile at ERCOT…..
Seasonal Updates (ercot.com)
What is it with the ERCOT site that requires special permissions to access?
Did Al Gore buy property or a company in TX recently? This effect is greater than just a Gore visit.
Could it be he is so full of it that he’s always in Brownsville?
Hey, they were close… Just convert everything to Kelvin and it doesn’t look so bad! 😀
Hey we have 10 days left. Could be a heatwave. Texas… LOL.
But wait, let’s average the temperatures of Houston and Tampa, after all, they are only 790 miles apart. That will give an average temperature for the region.
Looking at this forecast it appears they simply got the amount of CO2 out by a factor of 10 in the forecast model – a basic error in weather modelling. I figure that is the only thing that could make such a large difference between forecast and actual.
The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are the big play for AR6. There will be enough hot air exchanged on SSPs during the upcoming AR6 report compilation to warm up Texas. I am so excited with the prospect of discussing SSPs – its so woke it is a thing of beauty. I hope I can find someone to share my pathway.
I assume that the SSPs replace the RCPs? Are they any more realistic?
A fantasy remains a fantasy no matter how cute its name. The first question to ask is -“Does CO2 alter global climate?”
The answer to that is no. All the other nonsense is window dressing on a fairy tale.
“I assume that the SSPs replace the RCPs? Are they any more realistic?”
From what I have read, the SSPs are more realistic than the RCPs, however to make up for that the AR6 models are running even hotter than the AR5 models so on balance the more realistic SSPs may not matter much.
oops, that was supposed to be a reply to Retired_Engineer_Jim
Yes but the colouration of the forecast has already been burned into the indoctrinated mind at a sub-conscious level. We already know they’ve started the ‘Global Warming is causing the cold because blah deblah some bollox or other.’ So if they knew it was going to be cooler then they’ve reinforced the warming view to their target audience splashing the hot reds about Bernays light for the sub literate.
As the Science crew is, where they have integrity left, a little smarter than your average voter you may be able to ignore this simplistic approach but for those who can’t gentleman that is your target audience too.
Good luck with that is all I can say.
So, I have to tell a treasured dinner table joke from my now Arlington buried Air Force pilot father, he with two AF paid masters degrees, one in electronics (weather radar) and one in meteorology, and one military Legion of Merit award (highest peacetime military award, and not for weather, something else).
He opined that weather was so complex the only reliable instrument was a ‘weather string’ hung outside.
If you could not see it in daytime, it was foggy.
If it wasn’t hanging vertical, it was windy.
If it was wet, it was raining.
And so on.
Then he would laugh and say, the only problem with the weather string was, it could not very well predict the future weather—and neither can I.
Too true Rud.
I like the story about the guy out in the rural area who always seemed to get the weather right when the local radio station and newspaper contacted him.
One day the reporter asked him which government website he relied upon to get his information.
He said – “syhotfw”
The reporter took several days to work out that the acronym meant –
“stick yer head out the f’n window”
I guess it’s about the same nowadays as back then.
It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.―Yogi Berra
Yes, but, remember, according to the Cult of Climastrology, the cold and snow is also caused by you mean people driving fossil fueled vehicles to get an Evil burger.
Patterns may be matched, images may be inferred, and outside of a limited frame of reference (the chaotic boundary), the objects of our beliefs may be distorted, invisible, or created.
Just think.
If we’d only “followed the science” Hansen’s model presented back in 1988, Hollywood would have never made “2012” or “The Day After Tomorrow”.
The price we pay for honesty.
I have 4 outdoor cameras on the 4 sides of my house. These cameras also have temperature sensors. We live in New Jersey where it’s been very overcast recently as you might expect. Therefore no sunshine affect. The temperature reading on the 4 is as much as a 12F spread. Where I live is quite rural so no UHI affect. And I’m asked to believe global temperatures have been measured to have risen over the past decade 0.14C. Give me a break!
Temperatures are no longer “measured”. The more common approach is homogenised and pasteurised records to match the models. That is why forecasts are so accurate. The cold snap in Texas will be erased through homogenisation and then pasteurising so it meets the standards. The forecast will be proven correct in years to come. The only uncertainty is the past temperatures as they are constantly being adjusted down to ensure an accelerating upward trend. Imagine what the current temperature measurements would do to the average in Texas if they were left as they are measured. An event like this could ruin upward trends for a decade or more; just not good enough.
The temperatures experienced in Texas simply cannot occur anywhere in Australia. The Bureau have decreed that -8C is as cold as it can possibly get and the electronic gauges are ranged accordingly. None read below -8C. Actually they do now but only after someone with his own thermometer wondered why he was observing -12C and the nearby Bureau gauge was reporting -8C. It was sort of apparent when the reported temperature held steady at -8C for about 3 hours after sunrise.
So homogenised and pasteurised records can achieve temperatures to six decimal places (even 7) if needed to yield a “warmest evah” press release. And obviously more decimal places ensures the scientific credibility of the source.
Just keep in mind that the terms ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ are artificial terms, not natural ones. Kind of like ‘weed’ or ‘sky’ or ‘planet’. Nothing wrong with that at all, but in order to think scientifically one must focus on fundamentals.
“Your kids will never see snow,” said some expert some 10 years ago.
VIDEO: Camels turn white as snow blankets parts of Saudi Arabia
Gulf Today Report, 18 Feb 2021
Happened a few years ago, too. 🙂
Sure, but until ice blocks are falling on singapore and twisters destroy LA like in the documentary The Day After Tomorrow I won’t believe it
I came across an old Photobucket account. Huriccane Charley sharply turns right.
Hope this works.
https://app.photobucket.com/u/kevster1346/p/7e5a8594-e63f-4600-b73e-07d00254b82d
Duh! Hurricane.
Only the first half of the vidre showed up.
By the beginning of February, the NOAA-CPC did get it correct. The 8-13 day CPC product also showed the same thing.
the 6-10 day CPC product on Feb 5:
ERCOT must not be using it. Their website documents that.
The Climate Doomsters claim that CO2 allows most IR from the sun to pass thru the atmosphere and heat the oceans and land and….. atmosphere to some extent. At night, they claim that CO2 blocks….limits…traps…much IR from radiating back into space and this results in warming over time. The CO2 for some reason sort of acts as a one way valve and it results in man made global warming because man keeps increasing the CO2. Is this their CO2 story? Anyone?
“The Climate Doomsters claim that CO2 allows most IR from the sun to pass thru the atmosphere…”
As I understand it, most of the energy that passes through the atmosphere from the sun is in the form of short-wave radiation (Light) which is absorbed by the earth then re-emitted in the form of long-wave radiation (IR). It is this IR that is supposed to be affected by greenhouse gasses. Wager vapor is the largest greenhouse gas followed by CO2, methane and others. The claim is that the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by man is singe thing (the “control knob”) causing all the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
The IR is easily felt on your skin on a sunny day. Of course I am just trying to get the Doomsters story straight. UV is very energetic but the width of the UV spectrum is about as narrow as the visible light spectrum. IR has a very wide spectrum.. The Doomsters need to work on their explanation why a one way action?….if CO2 is blocking IR, then it must block in both directions it seems to me….add CO2 to the atmosphere and it should block incoming …if in fact that is what it does…block IR during the day and thus cooler temp during day to offset any warming at night. When I ask about this I usually get an answer that it is complicated….that is why records show cooling of temp from about 1940 to 1980 while CO2 went up 15%.
OK, lets try this:
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/GreenhouseEffect
There are MANY fantasies of how CO2 is meant to cause warming
NOT ONE of them is backed by even one skerrick of scientific evidence.
The “greenhouse effect” postulates the Earth’s surface is some 33 degrees K warmer than its average radiating temperature of 255K, giving average surface temperature of 288K. (287K before homogenisation and pasteurisation) but Chines still have it at 287K while EU has it 289K; so take your pick.
It is the so-called “greenhouse gasses” that cause the 33 degrees C difference.
Now lets consider that there are two clearly observable temperature control mechanisms that thermostatically limit the range of ocean temperature to a low of -2C up to 30C. Anyone with global surface temperature data can see the result every day of the year for every year since satellites started global surface measurements:
Three tropical oceans with warm pools at 30C and two polar oceans with sea ice/water interface at -2C to give an average of 14C (287K). Keep in mind that 97% of the heat available to drive Earth’s weather is held in the top 100m of the oceans.
The fact that sea ice forms at a precise temperature is well known. The regulation of the warm pool temperature to 30C is less well known but easily observable using a myriad of methods.
Take 5 seconds to consider the alternatives offered and decide which is more likely. (a) some delicate heat balance dramatically upset by a tiny amount of additional trace gas or (b) two powerful thermostatic control processes that work to achieve the same upper limit across there tropical oceans thousands of miles apart and the same lower limit around two polar oceans at opposite ends of the globe.
You should not need any more than 5 seconds of thought to rightfully conclude that the “greenhouse effect” is just some sick fantasy that suits the questionable motives of wotld-be autocrats at the UN trying to separate you from your earned wealth.
There is also a small group of geologists offering the theory of https://plateclimatology.com
Can this be explained?
David Middleton-
“The record-shattering cold temperatures and winter storm were accurately forecasted well-ahead of time.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/18/arctic-air-freezes-permian-shale-fields-fake-news/
The color is off the scale. It was 46 degrees below the average high where I live.
Maybe we should start a weather service. I made comments at the end of December and the beginning of January which hit the nail on the head as to what the cold spot at 500 hPa meant for upcoming temps in the NH. Reading the tea leaves with the aid of earthnull it looked pretty clear to me that a cold wave was going to impact many areas across the NH. There was a noticeable change also at 500 hPa of wind patterns diving deep down towards the Equator which induced me to make that comment in early January. A comment which caused someone here to question what I was talking about.
I replied that to my mind the change up meant a sea change in the climate, and bingo look at what has taken place. I do not have the depth of overall understanding that most of you around here have, but I have always had a unique way of finding answers. That trait is further enhanced by the great commentary around here which spurs my thoughts at times to accurately connect the dots.
While skimming it, I thought the intense cold might have made even Seth Goebbelstein write an article without “climate change” in it. Sadly, I searched and it was not to be:
https://apnews.com/article/weather-texas-2a3095311cf760fb9f1a6d2e835e5bc0
Yes, and the second crisis is readers exposed to unprecedented distortions whether citing failed climate science of global warming causing more polar outbreaks that has been refuted in the Journal Nature or ignoring EIA multi-day stats on the ERCOT power grid by power source.
In 1917-18, there was a pandemic sweeping across the globe during the last part of a global war. Now we have a pandemic sweeping across the globe during a Climate Crusade Global War. They all fall down.
NOAA issued a similar ‘warm winter’ prediction and they blamed it on La Nina.
Do you have data to back up the claim that forecasts are accurate 7 to 10 days ahead somewhere?
Because as far as I can tell, 3 day and more is just a dartboard for NYC forecasts. None of the weather services have been reliable more than 3 days this winter. Of the ones I check, none.
In calgary the 7-10 day forecasts are 50% accurate 10% of the time
So I bought a weather rock
I use a weather canoe, it sits on a pair of sawhorses in the side yard and is 100% accurate.
The accuracy of weather forecasts depends almost entirely what climate you live in. Some climates are very dynamic and more chaotic than others, while some have almost no change for centuries. Forecasts are quite easy in those places. Good weather forecasting requires processing vast amounts of info. Computer models can’t manage that.
Here’s some info you will never see in mainstream anything…research the Maunder minimum of 1645 to 1708, the Grand Solar Minimum, NASA and NOAA report on zero sun spot activity causing planet cooling for the next 30 to 50 years, the coming crop failures and famine around the world and on and on…GET PREPARED NOW!!!
I remember seeing that forecast this fall, as well there being a la nina this year. Last time there was a la nina this part of the country (mid-Atlantic US coast) was cold and snowy. That was several years ago. So I knew back then that the forecast for a warm winter was likely to be wrong. And I was right! So I don’t pay much attention to those “warmer or cooler than” forecasts.
And Schellnhuber’s POTTY INSTITUTE models are a COMPLETE and UTTER FAILURE as well
https://notrickszone.com/2021/02/19/junk-grade-models-even-short-term-climate-and-weather-modelers-get-it-all-wrong/#comments
Anthony you need to pay more attention to a true prognosticator namely, Punxatawney Phil who saw a shadow on the 2nd Feb. and predicted six more weeks of winter.
The calendar did that, all Phil did was see a bunch of kleig lights and drunken party goers.
“The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days.”
I haven’t seen any weather forecasting skill over more than a day. They can get lucky most of the time. But let’s take last weekend as an example.
In the Puget Sound area, for Friday into Saturday a week ago, they were calling for 6-10 inches of snow Seattle and south. And 1-4 inches north of Seattle. I live about 70 miles north (as the sea gull flies, if they don’t detour to McDonalds), and we got at least a foot of snow in 12 hours. So were they “right” because they forecast snow, the amount be damned?
For most regions of the world 72 hours is about as far out as forecasting can be depended on, and then rarely. Here in western PA we have repeatedly had snow forecast, multiple inches, and so far we have very little. Laurel Highlands got hammered, as usual, north of I 80 has a good cover on. The days that snow was called for had very little, the days it was not supposed to snow it did(even though very little) so their reliability if pfffft.
Nature Mocks Trust the Sciencers.
If your goal is to poison the well, congratulations.
Another MEANINGLESS comment from Loy-dumb
Do you have ANYTHING to back up ANYTHING you say, or is it all just mindless jibber-jabber?
Nature really is making a total MOCKERY of the non-science of so-called “global-warming”.
And YOU make a total mockery of yourself, and all other AGW cultists and apologists, every time you post.
The well you so desperately defend IS poison.
You might want to learn what “poisoning the well” means before you embarrass yourself again.
Read Nicholas Nassim Taleb on prognosticators and doxastic comittment; their lack of skin-in-the-game. He recommends Damocles’ Sword of Truth hang over their credibility, their paychecks and their heads. Trust and verify. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
“The best we are able to forecast into the future with and skill is about 7 to 10 days”
I think you’re being extremely generous there, it would also depend on where, when and what kind of weather was being forecast.
The forecasts here in France are as useful as a chocolate teapot, this is what they predicted for us.
“Seasonal forecasts for the quarter November – December – January 2020–2021 in
Europe and mainland France.
During the quarter, the country should experience temperatures around normal (no particular mildness expected). Regarding precipitation, a dry scenario is most likely over a large half South-west of the country while in the northeast no scenario emerges.”
Turns out to have been one of the wettest and coldest winters for years!!
The Weather Channel, last place anyone should go to for information about weather, ever. If they simply ran a real time satellite/radar composite 24/7 you could mute it and get some useful idea about what will come your way short term, as it stands they are simply one more source spewing Man Caused Globall Warmining propaganda.